- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30699-DB WP No. 14238 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO. 14238 OF 2024 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. HARMONY ARCHITECTS NO.1173, 22A CROSS, 23RD MAIN, BANASHANKARI, II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 070. REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT.JAYASHRI KIREETI. 2. SRI. K. R. SRIKANTA PRASAD S/O LATE SRI.K. RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.9, SHRISHYLA, 8TH CROSS JAYANAGARA HBCS, PADMANABHANAGAR BENGALURU- 560 070. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. RAKSHITHA, V.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHAVENDRA RAO K.,ADVOCATE) AND: B. S. SUDHARSHAN, S/O C.S.SHASHIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.805, 8TH MAIN ROAD, Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30699-DB WP No. 14238 of 2024 C BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA, MYSURU - 570 017. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANGAMESH R.B.,ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE (ADDITIONAL BENCH) IN APPEAL NO.322/2019 DATED 30/03/2024 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-H, ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard Smt. Rakshitha V.N, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Sangamesh R.B, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30699-DB WP No. 14238 of 2024 2. Under challenge in the instant petition is an order passed by the State Commission in Appeal No.322/2019 on 30.03.2024. 3. The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are: Firstly, with reference to the order sheet which is filed as annexure - G to this petition that initially after hearing the parties, the matter was reserved for orders on 28.10.2021. However, subsequently, the case was again listed on 08.02.2022, 08.03.2022, 03.08.2022 and 11.10.2022 for further hearing. On 11.10.2022, the Court directed posting of the matters for orders. Thereafter, the order was passed on 30.03.2024 i.e. after a period of nearly 1½ years. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ANIL RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR1 to contend that such an inordinate delay in passing the order or judgment after hearing the same has not being approved of by the 1 (2001) 7 SCC 318 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30699-DB WP No. 14238 of 2024 Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the aforesaid case of Anil Rai, some guidelines were provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding pronouncement of the judgment, which find place in paragraph No.10 of the judgment. It is contended that the delay in passing the impugned order by the State Commission are in the teeth of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Rai's case. Secondly, it is urged by the order impugned does not take into account any of the arguments advanced by the appellant/petitioner. It is stated that despite written submissions being filed, none of the submissions were considered. 4. We have perused the impugned order of 30.03.2024 in page No.59, which reads as under: "The appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The impugned order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysuru in CC.No.464/2009(R) is confirmed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30699-DB WP No. 14238 of 2024 The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the complainant. Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission". 5. The order impugned does not record any reasons for passing of the order. Reasons are the heart and soul of any judgment. No arguments have been noticed. Under the circumstances, the order impugned cannot be sustained. It is therefore, set aside. The matter is remitted to the State Commission with a request that the same may be reconsidered after hearing both the parties and an appropriate decision may be taken as expeditiously as possible. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent has stated that a particular date may be fixed before the State Commission for both the parties to appear since the complaint was originally filed in the year 2009. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30699-DB WP No. 14238 of 2024 7. Therefore, we direct the petitioners and respondent to appear before the State Commission on 29.08.2025 at 11.00 a.m. We would request the Commission to fix a date in the matter so that hearing in the matter may resume from the next date. Subject to the aforesaid observations, this petition is allowed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12